EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MODIFICATION TO
MICHIGAN MANDATORY HELMET LAW
MISSION AND
SITUATION
Legislation
is pending in the Michigan legislature to modify the mandatory motorcycle helmet
law. The mission of this report is
to consider a sometimes ignored aspect of law modification---the economic
impacts created by the increase in sales and tourism.
The
impetus to modify the Michigan law follows a national trend. Even though during the past thirty-five
years essentially all states had some form of mandatory helmet law, only
nineteen still do. None of the states bordering Michigan continue to have
mandatory helmet requirements for adults. Even if the proposed modifications are
passed, the
Michigan law will still be more restrictive than most states because it
will still require helmet usage by those under twenty-one, and by those without
recent training and experience,
SIZE AND GROWTH OF
MOTORCYCLING
Nationally,
motorcycle registrations increased annually for eleven straight years though
2002. A key influence has been the aging baby boomers. The median age for
motorcycle owners was 38.0 in 1998, compared to 24.0 years in 1980. A 1998 study found the median income of
motorcycle owners to be over $44,000, almost three-fifths were married, and over
one-half had furthered their formal education after high school.
In 2002,
there were 197,735 motorcycle
registrations in Michigan. On
a per capita basis, Michigan registrations were significantly below the levels
of bordering states.
The
Motorcycle Industrial Council estimated that in the year 2002 in Michigan there
were 528 motorcycle retail outlets, with 5,624 employees, and an annual payroll
of over $138 million.
ESTIMATED
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Modification
of the helmet law holds clear potential to increase the sales of vehicles and
accessories, as well as retaining a portion of the tourism spending of Michigan
motorcyclists and
attracting the spending of out-of-state motorcycle enthusiasts. The report
details the methodology, sources, assumptions, and calculations used to generate
the estimated impacts.
The key
estimates are as follows:
Economic
Activity--direct
New sales.......................................................................
$461.2 million
Resales increased...........................................................
124.8 million
Accessory sales increased...............................................
27.7 million
Tourism ..............................................................................
53.9 million
Total direct..............................................................
$667.0 million
Impact
including ripple effect......................................
$1.2 Billion
Sales
tax direct.............................................................
$40.0 million
Employment
Direct
(sales and tourism) jobs...............................................
1,500 new jobs
Total jobs, including from multiplier............................ 2,700 new jobs
Additional
tax revenue impacts are noted but formal estimates not offered. The report emphasizes that conservative
estimation techniques and assumptions are used throughout. The actual potential, particularly in
the area of attracting the tourism spending of motorcycle enthusiasts from other
states, is actually far greater than enumerated in the
estimates.
OTHER ASPECTS
The
report focuses on the economic impacts identified above, but for context does
provide notes on other aspects of the modification debate. These aspects included the “adult
choice” or “rights” aspect, the importance of training and education, and notes
on crash data.
Motorcycle
fatalities in Michigan numbered 82 during 2002. The number ranged from 51 to 94 during
the period from 1993 to 2002; a rather large variance statistically. Even though
all motor vehicle deaths are tragic, motorcycle fatalities represented a small
portion of the 1,279 recorded that year in Michigan, and were less than one half
of the pedestrian figure.
CHAPTER
ONE
PURPOSE
AND FORMAT
MISSION
Legislation
is pending in the Michigan legislature to modify the present mandatory
motorcycle helmet law. The mission
of this report is to consider a sometimes ignored aspect of law
modification---the economic impacts that potentially will be created by the
increases in sales and tourism.
The
document analyzes the likely increases in motorcycle registrations, sales and
ownership, retention of tourism dollars of Michigan motorcycle enthusiasts, and
attraction of visitors from other states. The analysis is based upon Michigan
data, results in other states, and discussions with those involved with
motorcycle events and sales.
The
report places the proposed modifications to the Michigan law in its proper
context compared to other states. As the narrative discusses, the impetus to modify the Michigan law
follows a national trend.
Even though at one time during the past
thirty-five years essentially all states had some form of mandatory helmet
legislation on the books, at present Michigan is one of only nineteen that still
do. All of the states bordering Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, plus
Illinois no longer have mandatory helmet requirements for adults. Even if passed, by requiring helmet
usage by those under twenty-one, and by those without recent training and
experience, the Michigan law will still be more restrictive than many if not
most states.
PREVIOUS
FOCUS ON OTHER ASPECTS
In the past,
advocates for modifying the law have focused their position on the “rights” or
“freedom of choice” of adult motorcycle operators. Advocates have also argued that better
training of motorcycle and automotive drivers would have a higher impact on
safety than any helmet law mandate. Some supporters of helmet freedom of choice
question the actual safety benefits of helmets and believe that the results of
state helmet laws are less than clear when all factors of usage, training and
operator age are considered.
The
arguments and debates are often passionate, and have been the subject of a
wealth of previous legislative testimony in Michigan and at the national level.
Even though the “rights,” and “training and safety” issues will continue to be
key elements of the position of law modification advocates, the economic impact
issues also merit inclusion in the discussion.
This
document, for the purposes of proper context, also provides summary information
on other elements of the overall debate, but the primary focus of the material
and findings is the economic impacts.
FORMAT
Section
One describes the mission and identifies the past focus of helmet law
modification advocates.
Section
Two provides an overview of the modifications being proposed, and reviews the
trends in others states.
Section
Three is the heart of the document, analyzing and estimating the economic
impacts from increased sales and tourism that will likely ensue from a
modification to the present law.
Section
Four offers brief summaries of the other issues that in the past been the
dominant elements of the helmet law modification. The summaries are provided
solely for context. Other studies and legislative testimony address those
concerns in much greater detail.
SECTION TWO
HISTORICAL
PERSPECTIVE AND
OVERVIEW
OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
MICHIGAN
SITUATION
How
Michigan compares to other states is seen as vital information. Michigan is now in the minority of states
that mandate helmet usage by adults.
None of the three states with land bordering Michigan (Ohio, Indiana,
Wisconsin) require helmet usage by
adults (neither do Illinois or Minnesota).
The
reality that Michigan has very restrictive helmet usage laws, while the national
trend has been to allow adult choice, has several ramifications for this study.
It means that data from states with similar geographic and demographics can be
used for statistical analysis of modifications to the existing law. It also means that there are direct
differences in the attractiveness of states for motorcycle tourism.
Understanding
Michigan in the national context also places the modification issue into one of
reasonableness. It is fair to suggest that helmet law modification advocates of
two decades ago were not always taken seriously in Lansing, regardless of the
legitimacy of their positions. This may have been due to the “colorful”
characterization that was placed upon them by outsiders, or even sought after by
the enthusiasts themselves.
Regardless, the reality is that adult choice for helmet usage is now the
common position of the majority of states, and that the average age and income
of motorcycle owners has been steadily increasing. Motorcycle users come from
all age, income, and education attainment levels. Simply put, the views of the individuals
who actually operate motorcycles, many for decades, merit valid
consideration.
NATIONAL
TREND
The
impetus for the original passage of mandatory usage in most states, including
Michigan, was created in 1966 when the United States Department of
Transportation threatened that federal highway funds would be withheld from
states that did not enact such legislation. Michigan, along with forty-eight
additional states (the exception at the time was California) relatively soon had
some form of helmet usage requirement enacted into law.
The past
federal pressure as the impetus for mandatory helmet laws is a valuable
historical note. The attitudes and reasoning of legislators over twenty-five
years ago cannot be viewed with certainty. Yet, there obviously is reason to believe that
the pressures for the Michigan law stemmed to a significant degree from the
federal funding requirement, rather than any perceived safety analysis. It was also part of a national trend,
one that has since gone in the opposite direction.
Even
though the federal Department of Transportation never reduced funding to any
states dues to the policy, the power do to so was challenged by several states
as well as motorcycle groups. By 1976, the United States Congress took action to
formally invalidate any power the DOT had to hold back funds. Since that time, a majority of states
have significantly modified or repealed their mandatory helmet use laws. At
present, Michigan is one of only 19 states that mandate helmet usage by adults.
None of the four states bordering Michigan mandate helmet usage by
adults.
Pennsylvania
was the most recent state to modify their motorcycle helmet law, with the change
becoming effective in September, 2003.
KEY PARTS OF
THE LEGISLATION AS NOW PROPOSED
Other
documents are available that detail the proposed legislation. Obviously, the
specifics of the actual language under consideration in legislative committee,
and perhaps eventually for a vote of the legislature, may go through a series of
refinements. The legislation being supported by ABATE (American Bikers Aiming
Toward Education) of Michigan incorporates the following primary
characteristics.
¨
Operators 20
years of age or younger would be required to wear helmets.
¨
Operators of
any age with limited experience would need to wear
helmets.
¨
Operators 21
years of age or older with experience would have freedom of choice regarding
helmet usage.
It is
important to note that if passed as proposed, Michigan would still have more
restrictions than over one-half of the states.
The proposed
modifications do not change the existing Michigan requirements involving brakes,
mirrors, headlights, passenger seats, and other features.
PRESENT
USAGE AND GROWTH
Nationally
Motorcycles
have enjoyed renewed popularity in the United States. In 1998 there were 6.57
million motorcycles (including off-road cycles) in use by approximately 5.7
million owners. Nationally, motorcycle registrations increased every year during
the eleven year period through 2002, the last year for which totals are
available.
A
key influence has been the aging baby boomers, now with more disposable income,
returning to motorcycle enjoyment. The median age for motorcycle owners was 38.0
in 1998, and the mean age 38.1 years.
These figures represent dramatic increases from a few decades ago. In 1980, for example, the median
age was 24.0 years and the mean age was 26.9 years.
In
the report America at Leisure, June, 2001
As Bear, Sterns & Co. Inc. noted “we believe that the strong industry sales
that we’ve seen since the mid 1990s and are currently experiencing should
continue for the better part of this decade, if any credence is to be given to
the demographics argument.”
Rather
than the old stereotype of societal outcasts, motorcycle owners are now more
likely to be mainstream America. Within the findings of the “1998 Survey of Motorcycle Ownership and
Safety” conducted for the Motorcycle Industrial Council (MIC) by Irwin Broth
& Associates, the following characteristics were
found:
¨
Median
income of motorcycle owners was over $44,000.
¨
Almost
three-fifths were married.
¨
Over
one-half had attended college or technical school after graduation from high
school.
¨
“Professional/technical” was the most
frequently reported category of occupation (this category was third in a similar
1980 survey, behind mechanic/craftsman and laborer/semi-skilled).
Given the
national increase in income from 1998 and 2003 the median income of
motorcyclists today very possibly exceeds $50,000
annually.
Michigan
In
2002, the State reported total motorcycle registrations of 197,735. Even a modest growth of 6% for
the entire period covering 2003 and 2004 will bring the total to approximately
209,600 for the year 2004. This number serves as a base to calculate potential
growth induced if the law is modified. The MIC estimates that in 1998 the
motorcycle population in Michigan 266,700, with 203,200 being used on-highway (at some time) and 82,000
being used off-highway at some
time.
A
survey sponsored by the MIC estimated that in 2002 there were 528 motorcycle
retail outlets in Michigan, with 5,624 employees. Of the outlets, 256 were classified as
“franchised” and 272 were classified as “non-franchised.” The total payroll at motorcycle outlets
in 1998 was estimated to exceed $138.9 million annually in Michigan and over
$3.55 billion nationally.
Even
these substantial figures do not include the economic activity generated at
multi-purpose retail and automotive supply stores that sell motorcycle related
fluids, parts, cleaning materials, tools, and other products.
Michigan usage compared to other
states
After
the State of Florida eased their helmet restrictions a significant increase in
total registrations quickly occurred.
ABATE of Florida, using state data; found that a 20.4% increase in total
registrations occurred over the previous year. Would such an increase happen in
Michigan?
Total
registrations in Michigan can be compared on a per capita basis with the other
Great Lakes states. As noted,
Michigan is the only one of these six states to require helmet usage by adults.
Table A provides comparisons for
registrations and population for the six states.
|
TABLE
A
COMPARISONS
OF REGISTRATIONS IN GREAT LAKES STATES |
|
State |
2000
motorcycle registrations |
2000
population |
Registration
per 1,000 residents |
|
Illinois |
196,000 |
12,419,293 |
15.78 |
|
Indiana |
118,000 |
6,080,485 |
19.41 |
|
Minnesota |
143,000 |
4,919,479 |
29.07 |
|
Ohio |
255,000 |
11,353,140 |
22.46 |
|
Wisconsin |
180,000 |
5,363,675 |
33.56 |
|
5
state total |
892,000 |
40,136,072 |
22.22* |
|
Michigan |
184,000 |
9,938,444 |
18.51 |
*
Weighted average, simple average is 24.06
Per capita motorcycle registrations in the
other five states, using a weighted average, were 20.1% higher than in Michigan
during the year 2000. Four of
the five states have registration figures significantly higher than Michigan’s.
Using an unweighted average for the five states generates a figure of 24.06
registrations per 1000 residents, or over 29% higher than that of
Michigan.
If
Illinois was excluded from the data the percentage difference between Michigan
and its four land border states would be ever greater.
The
total “Motorcycle population” estimates for each state can also be used for
comparison, although registrations are viewed as more appropriate. This
alternative data still yields the finding that motorcycle sales in Michigan are
significantly below neighboring and similar states.
Michiganders
are known for their enjoyment of motor vehicles, and have a similar or above
level of household income compared to neighboring states. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest
that if the law is modified, allowing freedom of choice for adults, overall
registration could increase by at least 20%. This may not occur in the first
year as it did in Florida, but over time (and perhaps quickly) a level of
equilibrium would be reached consistent with neighboring states.
SECTION THREE
DISCUSSION
AND ESTIMATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
INTRODUCTION
This Section
utilizes the potential impact of a 20% increase in registrations and generates
estimates of the economic impact within the states. Tourism impacts are then
calculated, including both the retention within Michigan of the tourism spending
of Michigan motorcycle enthusiasts, and the attraction of motorcycle tourism to
Michigan. The overall totals are presented in terms of economic activity,
payroll, direct and indirect jobs, and state revenues.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SALES/REGISTRATION
GROWTH
Increased
sales and sales tax
Sales growth
will mirror growth in registrations. If modification to the law creates a 20%
growth, this represents an increase in registrations of 41,920. This figure is additive to
whatever growth or decline would have otherwise occurred based on such factor of
the economy, aging of America, and consumer trends.
The
national average sales price for an on-highway motorcycle in 2001 was
approximately $10,140. Given price
inflation, and the likelihood that the new cycle purchases induced by law
modification would be in the higher engine displacements, the price for the
vehicle purchases induced by the law modification in Michigan would probably
average at least $11,000. Using
the $11,000 figure, the additional sales of new vehicles could represent $461
million in direct economic activity.
The 6% sales tax on these vehicles could total $27.7 million.
In
addition to the new and used vehicle purchases, the increased number of owners
will result in increases in annual purchases of accessory items. Nationally in 2001, “Parts, Accessories, & Riding
Apparel” and “Service labor” and
“Other Motorcycle Related Sales” (excluding purchases of new and used
vehicle) averaged over $611 per operator. Former owners returning to
motorcycling may spend even more.
For
estimation purposes, a $625 per year average for the 41,920 new sales is
suggested as appropriate when the impact of the modification takes complete
effect and is responded to in the marketplace. This represents over $26.2 million in
annual activity and over $1.5 million in state sales tax. These are annually recurring items that
will rise with inflation.
The
increase in registrations and sales will also energize the resale market. Firm figures from other states are not
available, but it is prudent to assume that a 20% increase in sales can result
in at least a 10% increase in resales. This would be a recurring item, and may
further increase as the number of registrations and existing vehicles increased.
Using the existing base of 209,600, a 10% increase in resales, at an average
price of $6,000, generates an estimates direct impact of $125.8 million, and
sales tax revenues of over $7.54 million.
Even
though not included in any monetary estimates, it is possible that the new and
used sales figures will be further heightened by more people from neighboring
states purchasing their vehicles in Michigan. Such sales are of particular
economic benefit by bringing out-of-state dollars into
Michigan.
Employees and
payroll
The
increase in registration will create an increase in employment and payroll. A factor of 15% is chosen, less than the
20% sales factor because the management and facility system is reasonably
well-established. An estimated 6,406 positions were involved in motorcycles
retail sales and maintenance during 2003. This does not include individuals
involved with motorcycle services that are listed in other employment categories
or operate on a cash-only basis.
A
15% increase represents 961 direct jobs.
Use of a conservative multiplier of 1.8 to represent induced jobs created
by sequential rounds of spending by individuals in the direct jobs increases the
gross employment impact to 1,730 jobs. The direct total payroll would increase
by over $20.8 million, with the impact on the state income tax directly being
$730,000, with the multiplier effect further increasing the overall impact.
TOURISM IMPACTS
Background
A
variety of stories have appeared in the media pertaining to the incredible
popularity, and economic impact, of major motorcycle rallies in other states. It
cannot be predicted that in the near future Michigan will duplicate such
success. Yet, as long as the helmet law restrictions
continue, it is certain that many Michigan motorcyclists will decide to vacation
in other states, and the full potential of attracting motorcycle tourists to
Michigan will be restricted.
A
popular magazine of avid motorcyclists is Horse Backstreet Choppers. It is published in Sterling Heights,
Michigan. They sponsor a motorcycle rally/event each
year---but never in Michigan. The most recent event, in Salesbury, North
Carolina, attracted over 30,000 individuals. The majority used hotel/motel rooms
in the area. The function has probably outgrown the area, and new sites are
being considered.
In
an interview with the event sponsors, it was unequivocally stated that Michigan locations would not be considered
due to the present helmet law.
Simply put, a Michigan location would attract fewer
people.
Some
motorcycle rallies/events are held in Michigan each year, but nothing of the
magnitude of the major events held in other states. Typically, Michigan events
do not attract many motorcycle enthusiasts from others states. Meridian Entertainment, organizers of an
event in West Branch each year called the Hog Rendezvous provided insight into the
situation. In 2003, of 5,157 paying
attendees at the Hog Rendezvous, only 57 (or 1.1%) were from out-of-state. The
percentage was 1.25% in 2002 and 1.9% in 2001. The organizers strongly believe
that a modified helmet law allowing adult choice would significantly increase
the number of out-of-state visitors.
Estimation of tourism
impacts
Increased
tourism spending will occur through two interrelated
aspects:
¨
Retention of
the spending of Michigan motorcyclists.
¨
Attraction
into Michigan of motorcycle tourists from other states.
Modest
factors are utilized to estimate the economic
impacts.
Retention of
Michigan motorcycle tourists
ABATE
members and other Michigan motorcycling enthusiasts report that they typically
choose other states for motorcycle based vacations due to the helmet
restrictions in Michigan. This creates a substantial loss of spending for
Michigan tourism based firms.
The
197,735 motorcycle registrations in Michigan are estimated to represent 179,759
individual owners, using a factor of 1.1 cycles per owner. If the change in the helmet law is able
to retain one vacation trip in the state for only 20% of the owners, this
represents almost 36,000 trips. For calculation purposes, a modest figure of
$600 per trip is used to derive an estimate of $21.6 million in retained
spending in Michigan. This also would create $1.3 million in state sales taxes,
plus additional state and local taxes on such things as motel rooms, alcohol,
gasoline, and even tobacco products, plus and income and other taxes paid by the
employees in the jobs created.
Increased
attraction of out-of-state motorcycle tourists
The
modifications to the law will attract more out-of-state motorcycle enthusiasts
to take vacations in Michigan. The
trips may range from relatively short one day visits to areas near the borders,
to extended week long journeys. The number of trips into Michigan can modestly
be estimated to at least equal the number retained by Michigan residents. The
35,952 figure is viewed as conservative. In addition to the independent trips,
even a handful of modest motorcycle events can attract much of the figure. If
one or two major events were to be located in Michigan, they alone could
approach much of the number.
Using
a figure of $900 per trip by out-of state residents generates an attracted
spending figure of $32.4 million and sales taxes of $1.9 million. Other forms of
tax revenues would also accrue to the state and local governments.
It is reiterated that the
out-of-state tourism potential is far higher than the modest estimates used
here. Michigan is known for fine roads, beautiful shorelines, and northern
scenery. There is a pent-up demand by motorcycle
enthusiasts to visit Michigan. The
change in the law is very likely to encourage sponsors of existing or potential
motorcycle events to market heavily to tourists of other states.
As an
ultimate reference point, researchers at the University of New Hampshire
estimated that the economic impacts of the famous Laconia Motorcycle Race Week
that takes place annually in the state pumps “$200 million into the region’s
economy.” Findings of similar
magnitude can be found for the famous motorcycle events in Daytona, Florida,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Sturgis, South Dakota. It is not suggested that Michigan will
ever replicate events of such size, but the potential clearly exists to reap
significant tourism dollars from motorcycle events located in
Michigan.
Tourism
totals
Added
together, the retention and new attraction calculations total $53.9 million in
new tourism spending in Michigan, and $3.2 million in sales taxes. Other forms of tax revenues, elusive to
quantify, will also be generated.
It
is possible to translate the revenue figures into job estimates. Using a factor of one job created for
each $60,000 in tourism spending generates a direct job increase estimate of
539. These jobs also create additional jobs in the community through sequential
rounds of spending. This multiplier
effect will be at least 1.8 or .8 induced jobs created for each direct job. This brings the total tourism job
impact to 970.
OTHER
CONSUMER AND BUSINESS EXPENDITURES
There
are other aspects as well. For
example, registration fees to the state would be increased proportionately.
National advertising from motorcycle companies and local motorcycle businesses
would increase. Major motorcycle
events attract national sponsorship money. A portion of the new employees hired
may now be receiving State income maintenance benefits, thus relieving the state
of that cost.
IMPACT
TOTALS
The
impacts from the increased sales and tourism activities are summarized
below:
.Economic
activity--direct
New sales.......................................................................
$461.2 million
Resales increased...........................................................
124.8 million
Accessory sales increased...............................................
27.7 million
Tourism ..............................................................................
53.9 million
Total direct..............................................................
$667.0 million
Impact including ripple effect.....................................
$1.2
Billion
Sales tax direct.............................................................
$40.0 million
Employment
Direct
(sales and tourism) jobs.................................. 1,500
new jobs
Total jobs, including from multiplier............... 2,700 new
jobs
A
significant portion of the economic impacts will be annually recurring, as well
as the majority of the employment. As repeated several times, the actual
potential for motorcycle tourism is far higher than the modest figures used in
this report. Florida found that dramatic impacts
occurred the first year after the modifications in their law were
enacted. The speed of the
impacts in Michigan may or may not differ, probably relating more to the
regional economy than the ultimate results. It is clear that the law is
appealing to a segment of the economy with disposal income and an interest in
travel. It is also a segment that
is certain to grow due to the graying of the baby boom
generation.
SECTION
FOUR
NOTES
ON RELATED CONCERNS
REITERATION
OF MISSION
As
stated at the beginning, the mission of this study is to analyze the economic
benefits of modification of the existing law that will stem from increased
vehicle sales and tourism. This beneficial impact has been an under-appreciated
element in past debates. It is not
claimed that the economic benefits identified in this report should be viewed as
dominant considerations in the legislative deliberations; but they merit
inclusion in the discussions.
Given
that other elements have usually been central to the debate, it is useful to at
least identify within this document those aspects in order to provide a context
for the economic impacts discussion.
A wide variety of material and testimony has previously been submitted by
various groups and researchers pertaining to these other aspects. The narrative below simply provides
capsule summaries.
NOTES ON
ADULT CHOICE
The
past focus of modification proponents, at least as reported by the media, has
been that an adult should have the right to choose whether or not to use a
helmet. Even in states that allow
adult choice, many still decide to use a helmet at all times or during inclement
weather. Some motorcyclists believe that their vision is improved without a
helmet, and thus are safer---while some will always use helmets, seek out the
best ones for their needs, and wear them correctly. For most proponents of modification, it
is not a matter of being anti-helmet, but the fundamental right of an adult to
choose.
It
is important to repeat that even if the modifications are enacted, Michigan
would still be one of the more restrictive states in the nation. All operators under the age of 21 would
still need to use a helmet. Even
adult operators without experience (as proposed the length is two years) would
need to use a helmet. The law
would also enhance training requirements.
NOTES
ON CRASH DATA
It
is not the mission of the study to analyze in depth motor vehicle crash
statistics. Proponents of
modification point to a variety of data that suggests the value of a helmet in
crashes is of little consequence, while opponents claim there is a safety
benefit. Given that in a major accident with a fatality there likely are a
variety of critical injuries, the applicability of common crash data can be
questioned by analysts on both sides of the issue.
It
is valuable to place the motorcycle crash figure in a proper context. Table B provides the motorcycle
fatality figures in the State of Michigan for a 10 year period. In 2002, there
were 82 fatalities involved in 81 crashes involving
motorcycles.
|
TABLE
B
MOTORCYCLE
CRASHES AND FATAL CRASHES
MICHIGAN--1993
THROUGH 2002 |
|
Year |
All
Crashes |
Fatal
Crashes |
|
1993 |
2,768 |
51 |
|
1994 |
2,982 |
66 |
|
1995 |
2,651 |
80 |
|
1996 |
2,468 |
61 |
|
1997 |
2,465 |
63 |
|
1998 |
2,931 |
52 |
|
1999 |
2,820 |
80 |
|
2000 |
3,180 |
82 |
|
2001 |
3,228 |
94 |
|
2002 |
3,030 |
81 |
All
accidental deaths are tragic. On purely a comparative statistical basis,
however, the 82 fatalities are not a large figure, particularly considering that
there were over 1,279 fatalities in motor vehicle related accidents in Michigan,
and an overall population that now exceeds 10,000,000. Pedestrian deaths represented more than
twice the number of fatally-injured motorcyclists. Motorcycles simply are not a major
component of the vehicles safety challenges faced in Michigan or any other
state.
It is
noteworthy that the number of fatalities changes significantly each year. The figure of 94 in 2001 was more than
80% higher than the 1998 figure, but then the 2002 figure dropped by 14%.
Therefore, attempting to predict the absolute change in fatalities from a
modification in the helmet law is extremely problematic. Claims of a “5%” or
“10%” increase or decrease in fatalities due to any change in law or state
programs simply are overwhelmed by the statistical chaos in the yearly data.
Furthermore,
the proposed modification actually involves only a subset of the motorcycling
operating population. As noted,
those under 21 and operators without significant experience would still be
required to use a helmet. Thus,
statistically, the purported protection provided by a helmet would continue to
apply to those most at risk and less able to make an informed personal judgment.
Moreover, many adults would continue to use a helmet.
Advocates
for forcing usage of helmets claim they save lives and prevent serious injury.
This has never been accepted as an established fact by many motorcyclists. The
official standards for a helmet only require that it must withstand a crash of a
speed of 13 miles per hour or less. This also assumes that the helmet is
appropriately chosen to fit snugly and worn correctly.
NOTES ON
EDUCATION AND STATE PRIORITIES
The
reality is that the State of Michigan has not made motorcycle operator training
a priority, nor has it made motorcycle awareness by automobile operators an
integral part of training and licensing. Passage of the legislation should
enhance cooperation between the State and ABATE and other motorcycle groups,
thus serving to place a higher and potential more effective emphasis on driver
education and training.
The
training component of the proposed legislation would emphasize the problem of
drinking and driving of all vehicles, a major factor in both automotive and
motorcycle accidents.
INFORMATION
SOURCES
A
wide variety of sources were reviewed during the preparation of this study. Those of most direct relevance to
the findings are identified below.
¨
American
Motorcycle Network, statement of Louisiana Governor Mike Foster, October,
2003.
¨
Bear Stearns
& Co. Inc. America at Leisure, 2001.
¨
Biker Rights
Online, States and Helmet Laws
(list).
¨
Greater
Milwaukee Convention and Visitors Bureau, website, information on impacts of
National Motorcycle Rally.
¨
Michigan
Department of Education, Traffic Safety
Education Program, 2003.
¨
Michigan
State Police, Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, 2002 Michigan Traffic Crash
Facts.
¨
Michigan
Secretary of State, Motorcycle License Information
Website.
¨
Motorcycle
Industry Council, Statistical Annual
2002.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Evaluation of the Repeal of the Motorcycle
Helmet Laws in Kentucky and Louisiana.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, Vehicles, Crash Data Report,
1990-1999.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, Motorcycles, Crash Data Report,
1990-1999.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, Traffic Safety Facts,
2001.
¨
National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and
Analysis, Fatality Analysis Reporting
System, Web Based Encyclopedia.
¨
Standard
& Poors, Harley-Davidson STARS
Report.
¨
SYSTAN,
Under contract with the California Highway Patrol, California Motorcyclist Safety Program,
¨
United
States Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, Michigan, Employees, Payroll, and Establishments by
Industry, 2001.
¨
United
States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Motorcycle, Bicycle, & Parts
Manufacturing.
¨
University
of New Hampshire, Robert Gittell, Project Director, Economic Benefits of New
Hampshire Primary (includes references to Laconia Motorcycle Race
Week).
¨
University
of Wisconsin-Madison, Wayne Bigelow, Wisconsin CODES Project, Motorcycle Crashes in Wisconsin,
1994-1998.
¨
A variety of
material appearing on the WebPages of the various state ABATE associations
throughout the country.
¨
A variety of
testimony given to state legislatures in other parts of the country both from
those advocating mandatory helmet laws and those advocating adult
choice.
¨
A variety of
media reports on motorcycle helmet legislation in other
states.
¨
A variety of
media reports on economic impacts of motorcycle rallies/events in other
states.
A.B.A.T.E. of Michigan, Inc.
TOPIC: MANDATORY HELMET USE LAWS
American Bikers Aiming Towards Education (ABATE) of
Michigan, Inc. is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the rights
and promoting the safe operating practices of Michigan motorcyclists.
POSITION:
ABATE of Michigan is a freedom of choice organization, i.e., we
believe that the rider is best able to decide the type of motorcycle to ride and
the type and extent of safety gear to be worn. We believe that adult riders
should have the freedom to choose whether or not they should voluntarily use
helmets as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program or not. We do not
support laws mandating use of helmets at all times for adult riders.
ABATE of Michigan believes that accident prevention and
avoidance along with car driver awareness programs are more effective in
reducing injuries and fatalities than any mandatory equipment laws. For this
reason, ABATE of Michigan initially introduced legislation for
motorcyclist-funded rider education and has continued to support additional
funding and protecting funding that has been earmarked for motorcycle
education. ABATE volunteers have also taught over
25,000 new car drivers to look out for motorcyclists with our "Driver Awareness
Program" offered to driver's education classes.
DISCUSSION:
It is essential to make a clear distinction between the use of
a helmet and laws mandating such use. Helmet use may be desirable under many,
but not all, conditions. Laws mandating such use at all times are unjustified.
The decision to use a helmet, at what times, and under what circumstances or
conditions should remain with the adult operator or passenger.
Mandatory helmet use laws were initiated by the Federal
government in the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and subsequently repealed by the
Federal Aid Highway Act of 1975 and signed by then President Gerald Ford in
1976. Most states repealed the imposed mandatory helmet use laws for adults
after the Federal pressure was removed. Yet motorcycle safety statistics
improved dramatically throughout the 1985 through 2000 period, with National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) figures showing a 51 percent
decline in motorcycle fatalities in that time frame.
More recently, Federal "incentives" to require state compliance
with passage of mandatory helmet use laws were attempted again in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. Only one state (Maryland)
complied with these "incentives", which were repealed by the National Highway
Systems Act of 1995. There are currently no Federal penalties against states
that do not have mandatory helmet use laws. In addition, since that time 6
states have modified their existing laws to reflect adult choice of helmet
usage.
Motorcyclists generally exhibit a high rate of voluntary
compliance with use of helmets. Where helmet use is not required by law, rates
of use typically range from 60 - 75 percent. According to the National Occupant
Protection Survey conducted in the summer of 2002, helmet usage was estimated at
58% nationally. This may account for the fact that there is no significant
difference in overall motorcyclist fatalities between states that require helmet
use and those that do not (2.98 vs. 2.90 fatalities per 100 accidents).
Some advocates of mandatory helmet use laws believe that
uninsured costs of injured motorcyclists, which must be born by the public,
would increase if voluntary use was permitted. This is not supported by the
experience of states that have modified mandatory use laws. As for any "burden"
that uninsured motorcyclists may be thought to place on health care resources,
it has been consistently determined that motorcyclists are as likely to be
privately insured as any other motor vehicle accident victim and in some cases
are more likely to be privately insured than the general population of trauma
patients .
Motorcyclists do not represent any greater potential cost to
taxpayers than a person driving a car or engaging in any other activity with a
potential risk, be it skiing, horseback riding, or climbing the stairs in the
house. Motorcycle accidents represent less than one percent of all vehicular
accidents. Compared with automobile drivers, motorcyclists represent a minuscule
part of all motor vehicle costs.
Laws mandating helmet use at all times have no significant
effect on the safety of motorcycling in general. This is clearly evident in
Table 1 which compares Michigan with the other states in the Great Lakes Region
and in Table II which is a comparison of mandatory helmet states and those which
allow adult choice.
Table I: Motorcyclist Fatalities and Fatality Rates by State
Totals from 1993 - 2001
| State |
Total Traffic Fatalities |
Motorcycle registrations (thousands) |
Motorcycle fatalities |
Fatalities per 10000 Reg. Veh.. |
| Illinois (a) |
13,085 |
1,817 |
1,023 |
5.6 |
| Indiana (b) |
8,517 |
937 |
563 |
6.0 |
| Minnesota (b) |
5,432 |
1,138 |
334 |
2.9 |
| Ohio (c) |
12,636 |
2,116 |
1,059 |
5.0 |
| Wisconsin (b) |
6,678 |
1,613 |
542 |
3.4 |
| Total |
46,339 |
7,621 |
3,521 |
4.6 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Michigan |
12,767 |
1,398 |
658 |
4.7 |
(a) No helmet use requirement
(b) Required for riders under 18 years old
(c) Required for riders under 18 years old and
novices
Table II:
Comparison of States with mandatory helmet laws vs. States with
modified laws
| States where helmets are
required for all motorcyclists |
States which allow adult choice
(age varies by state) or have no mandatory helmet law |
| Year |
Total Traffic Fatalities |
Registered Motor-cycles (Thousands) |
Motor- cyclist Fatalities |
Motor- cyclist Fatalities per 10,000 Reg.
Veh. |
Total Traffic Fatalities |
Registered Motor- Cycles (Thousands) |
Motor-cyclist Fatalities |
Motor-cyclist Fatalities Per 10,000 Reg.
Veh. |
| 1993 |
28,746 |
2,410 |
1,582 |
6.5 |
11,369 |
1,591 |
862 |
5.4 |
| 1994 |
28,854 |
2,300 |
1,449 |
6.3 |
11,822 |
1,631 |
855 |
5.2 |
| 1995 |
29,630 |
2,171 |
1,403 |
6.5 |
12,168 |
1,529 |
818 |
5.3 |
| 1996 |
29,143 |
2,279 |
1,321 |
5.8 |
12,764 |
1,593 |
839 |
5.3 |
| 1997 |
24,745 |
2,093 |
1,190 |
5.7 |
17,222 |
1,779 |
916 |
5.1 |
| 1998 |
24,231 |
2,026 |
1,235 |
6.1 |
17,240 |
1,813 |
1,049 |
5.8 |
| 1999 |
23,240 |
2,103 |
1,299 |
6.2 |
18,371 |
2,052 |
1,173 |
5.7 |
| 2000 |
20,435 |
1,958 |
1,272 |
6.4 |
21,386 |
2,390 |
1,590 |
6.6 |
| 2001 |
20,685 |
2,120 |
1,457 |
6.9 |
21,431 |
2,783 |
1,724 |
6.2 |
Note: In 1993 there were 25 states where helmets were required for all
motorcyclists and 25 that were adult choice.
In 2001 there were 20 states where helmets were required for all
motorcyclists and 30 that were adult choice.
Note: With the exception of calendar year 2000, every year has had a lower
fatality rate per 10,000 registered vehicles in states that allow adult
choice.
One other issue that is of importance to the state of Michigan is the
adverse affect the restrictive laws may be having on the economy of the state.
According to a recent independent study, it is estimated that Michigan could
realize $1.2 Billion in increased economic activity and up to 2,700 additional
jobs could be created.
CONCLUSION:
The Motorcycle Safety Foundation Rider Education program may be
a factor in the reduction of Michigan motorcycle accidents. Because of
this, ABATE has a history of supporting motorcyclist-funded rider education in
Michigan. Since the initial legislation was passed in 1982, ABATE of Michigan
has been instrumental in keeping the motorcycle safety program funded. In 1987,
1989, 1992, 1995 and 2002, when this funding was threatened, ABATE of Michigan
fought to keep this safety program in force.
From the data presented in the paper,
it is evident, that the mandatory helmet use laws are not reducing
motorcycle fatalities. The decision on when to wear a helmet while operating a
motorcycle should remain with each responsible adult rider.
To improve motorcycle safety, ABATE of Michigan, Inc. makes the
following observations:
1. Helmets do not prevent accidents
2. Mandatory helmet use does not result in lower fatality
rates.The Michigan motorcycle fatality rate per 10000 accidents is not
significantly different from the total for the surrounding Great Lake States
3. In 2002, 32 percent of all fatally injured motorcycle
operators had higher intoxication rates, with BAC's of 0.8 or greater
4. In 2002, 25 % of the motorcycle operators involved in fatal
crashes did not have a valid motorcycle license
Rather than focusing on mandatory helmet use, which does
nothing to reduce accidents, energies should be directed toward reducing riding
under the influence and improving motorcycle operator education and licensing
along with car driver awareness programs in the state. This is why ABATE of
Michigan, Inc. has recently introduced the Ride Straight program, which is a
joint venture of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and is aimed at reducing/eliminating
alcohol consumption while riding. This is also why we continue to stress the
importance of the rider education programs and to teach new car drivers to look
out for motorcycles.
| 
